A Sound of Thunder: The Rise of the Soviet Superbooster

[nixonshead]

Voting! This is already one of my favorite space TLs of all time, it definitely deserves the win.

On another note, since the design and development of Hermes has already been changed, with Freedom/ISS around to dictate design changes and bring the craft's usefulness into question, and with Challenger not very publicly blowing up on ascent, and thus making a heavy abort system a necessity, I wonder how different Hermes will look here. Which of the many different iterations it will be based on if it does indeed fly. I think with a smaller docking system for Columbus, no LES, and the Japanese cargo ship making cargo upmass a bit less critical, we might see one of the more Shuttlesque designs fly, with no service/resource module.

I still need to go through Hermes' development in detail for TTL, but my initial gut feeling is there's no getting away from the resource module. IOTL it started out because of mass constraints, and quickly developed into a universal solvant for any problems with the design (except not a very good one, as Hermes still remained stubbornly overweight). Every new crewed vehicle or serious spaceplane concept since Shuttle and up until Starship has featured a throwaway service module, from Shenzhou, Kilper, Orion, Orel, Dragon 1&2, Dream Chaser, Gaganyaan, etc. So I wouldn't hold my breath that TTL's ESA will buck that trend.

And thanks for voting

 

[prolemasses]

Every new crewed vehicle or serious spaceplane concept since Shuttle and up until Starship has featured a throwaway service module, from Shenzhou, Kilper, Orion, Orel, Dragon 1&2, Dream Chaser, Gaganyaan, etc. So I wouldn't hold my breath that TTL's ESA will buck that trend.

Hey, the original Commercial Crew Dream Chaser design got away without a service module!

I really hope this means Hermes does indeed fly in some form here. Would be cool to see a TL where ESA develops an independent crew capability that's not just a glorified lifeboat for an American station.

 

[Thoresby]

I still need to go through Hermes' development in detail for TTL, but my initial gut feeling is there's no getting away from the resource module. IOTL it started out because of mass constraints, and quickly developed into a universal solvant for any problems with the design (except not a very good one, as Hermes still remained stubbornly overweight). Every new crewed vehicle or serious spaceplane concept since Shuttle and up until Starship has featured a throwaway service module, from Shenzhou, Kilper, Orion, Orel, Dragon 1&2, Dream Chaser, Gaganyaan, etc. So I wouldn't hold my breath that TTL's ESA will buck that trend.

It's worth noting that every crewed vehicle between Shuttle and Starship was built around a requirement to fit on a seperate launcher, reducing the weight and volume you need to undergo reentry is always an attractive option to regain margin when weight growth in one part of the architeture sets off the feedback loops of that have killed so many programs.

 

[Ry01tank]

I still need to go through Hermes' development in detail for TTL, but my initial gut feeling is there's no getting away from the resource module. IOTL it started out because of mass constraints, and quickly developed into a universal solvant for any problems with the design (except not a very good one, as Hermes still remained stubbornly overweight). Every new crewed vehicle or serious spaceplane concept since Shuttle and up until Starship has featured a throwaway service module, from Shenzhou, Kilper, Orion, Orel, Dragon 1&2, Dream Chaser, Gaganyaan, etc. So I wouldn't hold my breath that TTL's ESA will buck that trend.

And thanks for voting

Given how inter-European politics is kinda wierd i doubt a finished manned design will ever make it into production, Thatcher famously refused to participate as it would be stupid for the UK to pay for a frenchmen
the political division for flying astronauts would be hilarious, given that the launcher is mostly french built it will likely have a priority on french astronauts, basically like the ISS which has a system where participating countries have different astronaut fly rates depending on percentage of involvement, like Canada has had a handful and one commander due to the Canadarm2, but the US and Russia dominate the actual roster

What will the commerical sector be like, i imagine the American rocket industry might be better placed with the transition back to expendebles happening in 84 and 85, which OTL happened after 86 with a yearish gap in launches as there simply wasn't many rockets around
The Delta 2 (6000 series) might fly earlier in 87, the move to Ariane might not happen, same with other international launchers like China and India. This would totally butterfly the launch industry from OTL. Same with the engine industry, if you still follow a non collapsed USSR idea it would change the US engine market. No Russian "super engines" which get high specific impulse. Likely the Engine development that occured after Crimea might happen in the late 90s and early 2000s

Though i have an idea for a Delta 2 heavy with common core boosters, basically the extended long tank Thor but layed out like the OTL Delta 4 heavy, with some possible SRB's it could likely loft 6 tones to GSO and 15 to LEO (if not more).

 

[Sasza]

The development of new engines is necessary. Given the scale of production of the NK-33/35, it is unlikely that someone would purchase a license and produce it in the USA.

Unless the RS-27A's capabilities are further increased or its profound reconstruction follows the example of the M1 tanks. So it's actually a new engine under an old name.

 

[Ry01tank]

The development of new engines is necessary. Given the scale of production of the NK-33/35, it is unlikely that someone would purchase a license and produce it in the USA.

Unless the RS-27A's capabilities are further increased or its profound reconstruction follows the example of the M1 tanks. So it's actually a new engine under an old name.

Ya, Russian engines really gave american companies a freebee when it came to engine tech, the SSME and Shuttle killed the development market in the 80s and the Russian engines basically meant that there was no need for developing "home grown" engines
kinda like why ACRV wasn't developed for the ISS, why bother when the Russians have their own
Though ACRV was shitcanned a year before Columbia, so there is a TL out there with ACRV being the next gen of space exploration over Orion
The plan for SLS to fly crew rotation missions will never not be hilarious to me (this was the plan for a while)

I would think that higher efficency engines would be developed, we might see something like current falcon 9 in regards to lift capability, given its nearly the same size as Delta 2 (if im not mistaken) we could potentially see heavier lifters earlier, the only issue being that heavier satellites is a more recent "last 15 years" thing

Though i can only imagine that a potential Delta II with wider tanks and possibly another stretch of the tanks might make the rideshare concept an American staple earlier on, plus the USAF would love to have more heavier lifters
After all "improved extended long tank Thor" sounds hilarious
(Basically steroid the base Delta II up to be capable of 15 tons or more)

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

Were there any engines in development in the US during the 90s that were cancelled after they got the Russian ones?

 

[Sasza]

There was no major work on next-generation engines until SLI and RS-84 and RS-83.

In this version of history, they will most likely continue to modernize RS-27 to RS-56. Perhaps RS-83 will appear to reduce costs. Will there be a new engine to compete with the NK-33/35 on the market? It would be interesting. Unless Atlas will use two NK-33/35 instead of RD-180.

 

[nixonshead]

Ya, Russian engines really gave american companies a freebee when it came to engine tech, the SSME and Shuttle killed the development market in the 80s and the Russian engines basically meant that there was no need for developing "home grown" engines
kinda like why ACRV wasn't developed for the ISS, why bother when the Russians have their own
Though ACRV was shitcanned a year before Columbia, so there is a TL out there with ACRV being the next gen of space exploration over Orion

I had a US ACRV as the front-runner next-gen spacecraft in The Snow Flies.

In 2002 NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe announced that, following the deployment of the Horizon ACRVs to Alpha [2], NASA would aim to transfer logistical support for the station to the private sector by 2010, using unmanned vehicles launched via the new Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles and other commercial rockets, including the European Ariane and Soviet Zenit.[3] With cargo launches thus outsourced, the aging and expensive Space Shuttle would finally be retired, with its role in launching American crews into space taken up by a new Crewed Space Vehicle. Although a derivative of Lockheed’s Horizon spaceplane is considered a front-runner, its selection is far from guaranteed as, in a departure from NASA’s usual procurement methods, the CSV uses an innovative spiral development programme. This sees fixed-cost milestones replacing the more traditional cost-plus approach, culminating in a fly-off of the two most promising designs in 2009. As well as supporting LEO crew rotations of up to seven astronauts, the CSV is also expected to replace Horizon in the role of Alpha’s lifeboat. More ambitiously, CSV is being designed to support missions further into space, carried aloft by a new Energia-class launcher, the so-called Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV). Currently undergoing Phase-A studies, but planned to launch as soon as 2012, the SDLV will open up the possibility of a return to lunar orbit, to be potentially followed by lunar space stations and renewed landings by 2020, depending on future budget allocations.

 

[Ry01tank]

There was no major work on next-generation engines until SLI and RS-84 and RS-83.

In this version of history, they will most likely continue to modernize RS-27 to RS-56. Perhaps RS-83 will appear to reduce costs. Will there be a new engine to compete with the NK-33/35 on the market? It would be interesting. Unless Atlas will use two NK-33/35 instead of RD-180.

I thought the RS-68 was the first post Shuttle engine made, though considering it was really just a cheapened out SSME with modifications to make it more cheaper
This engine was supposed to fly Ares V, but the SRB heat would melt the ablative on the engines early

With Russian engines being prohibited from US use (depending on Nixonhead's path) it is likely US engine development would start up in the 90s for next generation stuff, while improving existing engines will dominate the rest of the 80s and into the 90s until newer engines come available

The nonuse of russian launchers would also change the general economy of satellite launches, heavier payloads were typically flown on Proton as Delta IV was expensive as hell, we could potentially see a cheaper Delta IV analogue being developed

Maybe this heavy lifter becomes the Delta III while Delta II is constantly improved and doesn't stagnate post 1990s with a basically frozen template and varying configurations, and this "Delta III" keeps the blue paint

For those who might notice, i am a big Delta fan

I had a US ACRV as the front-runner next-gen spacecraft in The Snow Flies.

You used it once, why not again

 

[Sasza]

I thought the RS-68 was the first post Shuttle engine made, though considering it was really just a cheapened out SSME with modifications to make it more cheaper
This engine was supposed to fly Ares V, but the SRB heat would melt the ablative on the engines early

With Russian engines being prohibited from US use (depending on Nixonhead's path) it is likely US engine development would start up in the 90s for next generation stuff, while improving existing engines will dominate the rest of the 80s and into the 90s until newer engines come available

The nonuse of russian launchers would also change the general economy of satellite launches, heavier payloads were typically flown on Proton as Delta IV was expensive as hell, we could potentially see a cheaper Delta IV analogue being developed

Maybe this heavy lifter becomes the Delta III while Delta II is constantly improved and doesn't stagnate post 1990s with a basically frozen template and varying configurations, and this "Delta III" keeps the blue paint

For those who might notice, i am a big Delta fan

You used it once, why not again

Delta IV's problem was its price. If it were possible to introduce a cheaper engine plus engine recovery using the SMART model, the price would drop more.

The only question is whether there will be an Atlas with Russian engines.

 

[Ry01tank]

Delta IV's problem was its price. If it were possible to introduce a cheaper engine plus engine recovery using the SMART model, the price would drop more.

The only question is whether there will be an Atlas with Russian engines.

Engine recovery is always an iffy situation, salt water corrosion will destroy the engines, and having the engine pod would risk this damage, you would need to get accurate info on sea states downrange, basically adding extra cost ontop of it. Given that reusing engines is still a new(ish) process today with SpaceX being the first to truely work the concept out, basically reuse plumbing and replace damaged engine bells, i doubt that this kinda thinking would be put in place in the 90s.

Yes the SSME is technically the first, but considering that it was totally rebuilt for each flight and was more expensive then buying an expendable and tossing it out afterwards it really doesn't count besides being a "technology demonstrator"

 

[nixonshead]

You used it once, why not again

In this case, I'm using it in reverse: The next generation Freedom capsule, developed for the moon, is adapted to be an ACRV for Skylab.

 

[RanulfC]

Engine recovery is always an iffy situation, salt water corrosion will destroy the engines, and having the engine pod would risk this damage, you would need to get accurate info on sea states downrange, basically adding extra cost ontop of it. Given that reusing engines is still a new(ish) process today with SpaceX being the first to truely work the concept out, basically reuse plumbing and replace damaged engine bells, i doubt that this kinda thinking would be put in place in the 90s.

NASA firmly proved with extensive testing in the early 60s that ocean recovery of a rocket engine was really not an issue*. Since the model tested was the H1 which itself was the original Delta engine and from which the later models were developed this was highly likely to be the most cost-effective way to 'recover' the engines.
*Considering we're talking salt water soak for two day (48 hours) rinse off with a garden hose, put into storage for two months THEN refurbished and fired. No issues. At a cost of around 5% of the original engine cost.

Randy

 

[Ry01tank]

In this case, I'm using it in reverse: The next generation Freedom capsule, developed for the moon, is adapted to be an ACRV for Skylab.

kinda forgot about that

NASA firmly proved with extensive testing in the early 60s that ocean recovery of a rocket engine was really not an issue*. Since the model tested was the H1 which itself was the original Delta engine and from which the later models were developed this was highly likely to be the most cost-effective way to 'recover' the engines.
*Considering we're talking salt water soak for two day (48 hours) rinse off with a garden hose, put into storage for two months THEN refurbished and fired. No issues. At a cost of around 5% of the original engine cost.

Randy

Did not know that

The development costs to make this reality and not an on paper idea will certainly cost more, testing a pathfinder engine is not the same as doing this routinely

Rocket and engine companies have little overhead for RnD outside of engine upgrades and rocket upgrades, it would take a government contract to actually fund the RnD required. This is why reuse is not designed in on modern rockets, Vulcan-Centaur and Ariane both are expendable while Falcon 9 has world records in reflight
(Though this was basically due to everybody thinking Elon was stupid, and when reuse worked Ariane and Vulcan-Centaur were too far along for reuse)

 

[e of pi]

NASA firmly proved with extensive testing in the early 60s that ocean recovery of a rocket engine was really not an issue*. Since the model tested was the H1 which itself was the original Delta engine and from which the later models were developed this was highly likely to be the most cost-effective way to 'recover' the engines.
*Considering we're talking salt water soak for two day (48 hours) rinse off with a garden hose, put into storage for two months THEN refurbished and fired. No issues. At a cost of around 5% of the original engine cost.

Did not know that

The development costs to make this reality and not an on paper idea will certainly cost more, testing a pathfinder engine is not the same as doing this routinely

If I recall correctly, those tests on the H-1 always tore the engine down to pieces, cleaned every part individually, and re-assembled it as part of that "refurbishment"? The question was how much cleaning they did immediately after dunking, not whether such a thing was going to require completely rebuilding the engine or not. (Somebody at Rocketlabs presumably has much more current data on this, but nobody in industry publishes anymore.)

 

[RanulfC]

Did not know that

Far to many people don't actually. The information was hard to find, originally the only thing anyone could find was some blurry photos of the operation but eventually the report was unearthed.

The development costs to make this reality and not an on paper idea will certainly cost more, testing a pathfinder engine is not the same as doing this routinely

Was done with production H1's from the Saturn 1 development program which aimed to recover and possibly reuse the S1 stage.

Rocket and engine companies have little overhead for RnD outside of engine upgrades and rocket upgrades, it would take a government contract to actually fund the RnD required. This is why reuse is not designed in on modern rockets, Vulcan-Centaur and Ariane both are expendable while Falcon 9 has world records in reflight
(Though this was basically due to everybody thinking Elon was stupid, and when reuse worked Ariane and Vulcan-Centaur were too far along for reuse)

No one thought that Musk was stupid, just that he was premature. Just like no one though reuse was "impossible" but the method was questionable due to the payload hit.
It remains an actual question if reuse IS actually cheaper, SpaceX has never been very transparent with it's economic figures. Vulcan-Centaur was supposed to use a engine recover scheme, (helicopter air-intercept of parachuted engine pod) but the economics were questionable so it's been shelved for the moment.

If I recall correctly, those tests on the H-1 always tore the engine down to pieces, cleaned every part individually, and re-assembled it as part of that "refurbishment"? The question was how much cleaning they did immediately after dunking, not whether such a thing was going to require completely rebuilding the engine or not. (Somebody at Rocketlabs presumably has much more current data on this, but nobody in industry publishes anymore.)

Literally as I stated. One engine was test fired, moved to the site and dunked for 48 hours, then pulled out and rinsed off, (no disassembly) and put into storage (a conex container IIRC) and left for two month and THEN disassembled and rebuilt. Pretty much the same as all the other engines tested, hence the reason for costs being about 5% of the original engine cost. IIRC, (going to have to find my copy of the report and reread it) the biggest concern was engine bell damage since it was going to land "engines" up and then rotate around to engines down in the water. They did drop several engines from various heights to simulate that roll over but I don't recall reading such damage was as common as they'd feared.

Randy

 

[e of pi]

Pretty much the same as all the other engines tested

Not really, no--there were individual H-1s that were fired 8 times in a single day with zero overhaul, so "total teardown and rebuild" is a pretty major change from that.

 

[Michel Van]

On Hermes, Let face the program was a Mess !
planned 1975 as small glider launch with Ariane 4/5 rocket, it mutated to french space shuttle in 1980s under CNES.
as became Official ESA program around 1985 it needed new rocket the Ariane 5 we know
then came 1986 Challenger disaster and Hermes needed crew escape system
From here here the program went down hill, mass increase, getting more and more complex, more expensive and delays
1992 the Germans pulled the plug the program, as they needed money for their reunification.

could had Hermes become operational program ?
yes, had the CNES Management in 1980s look into "what we need ?" and "What is meaningful for Hermes ?"
Had they someone with realist assessment what they really needed, Hermes had never become French Space shuttle...
But instead a Dyna-Soar like spacecraft that do what is needed:

- Bring ESA astronauts to US space Station or ESA space station
- Fly small experiment in orbit
- Service ESA space station Columbus Man-Tended Free Flyer
- Fly reconnaissance mission for french military

This would have safe Hermes from issues it ran in second half of the 1980s

by the way
Texas manage to land on Moon
The Intuitive Machines Nova-C lunar lander touch down safe on Target at the Malapert-A crater,

 

[Ry01tank]

If I recall correctly, those tests on the H-1 always tore the engine down to pieces, cleaned every part individually, and re-assembled it as part of that "refurbishment"? The question was how much cleaning they did immediately after dunking, not whether such a thing was going to require completely rebuilding the engine or not. (Somebody at Rocketlabs presumably has much more current data on this, but nobody in industry publishes anymore.)

If that is infact the case then rapidish reusability that falcon does is not practical

IIRC the SSME did the same with nearly every engine being torn apart and rebuilt each flight

Was done with production H1's from the Saturn 1 development program which aimed to recover and possibly reuse the S1 stage.

As you stated the engine was totally torn apart and cleaned and rebuilt, for a reusable rocket this is expensive, Falcon 9 has components designed to withstand multiple launches
Not to mention in this H-1 test, i wonder if damaged components were replaced, and if so to what extent

No one thought that Musk was stupid, just that he was premature. Just like no one though reuse was "impossible" but the method was questionable due to the payload hit.
It remains an actual question if reuse IS actually cheaper, SpaceX has never been very transparent with it's economic figures. Vulcan-Centaur was supposed to use a engine recover scheme, (helicopter air-intercept of parachuted engine pod) but the economics were questionable so it's been shelved for the moment.

Musk was the first to actually have the balls to flesh out the concept and do things for real
The payload hit is why reuse isn't added, if a 20 ton-LEO launcher becomes 10 you loose alot of cabability

Helicopter-rocket catching is a fancy idea, but ya the economy is very iffy, in Vulcan-Centaurs case the idea is more as a study and not practical use as the changes would require a huge change to the rocket itself

Literally as I stated. One engine was test fired, moved to the site and dunked for 48 hours, then pulled out and rinsed off, (no disassembly) and put into storage (a conex container IIRC) and left for two month and THEN disassembled and rebuilt. Pretty much the same as all the other engines tested, hence the reason for costs being about 5% of the original engine cost. IIRC, (going to have to find my copy of the report and reread it) the biggest concern was engine bell damage since it was going to land "engines" up and then rotate around to engines down in the water. They did drop several engines from various heights to simulate that roll over but I don't recall reading such damage was as common as they'd feared.

Randy

One engine test is one thing, doing this routinely is another, the SSME was supposed to be able to refly without refurbishment for a few flights, while it was completely disassembled every flight, on the ground you can fire the engine whenever, when exposed to the forces of launch its a different story


ITTL by 87 the H-1 is LONG out of production and is going to be replaced by the RS-27, for this to be practical the engines need to be designed for modern (90s) use, and these changes would leave the engine totally different, like the F-1B idea

Not really, no--there were individual H-1s that were fired 8 times in a single day with zero overhaul, so "total teardown and rebuild" is a pretty major change from that.

Ground testing and flight testing are very different, along with the complete teardowns and overhauls each engine would be a bitch to clear for flight, not to mention the normal degrading that comes with extended use